There's Definitely More Channing Tatum In The New Trailer For G.I. JOE: RETALIATION!!

Well, Paramount certainly held up their end of the bargain, adding more Channing Tatum to G.I. JOE: RETALIATION, as evidenced by the film's new trailer (via Yahoo!). How much more is yet to be determined until we get to see the finished film at the end of March, but I think it's safe to say he doesn't get whacked in the first 10 minutes anymore.

There's not much else new to see here, as just about all of this footage was a part of the film's previous marketing campaign before the movie was pulled from the 2012 summer calender about a month before release.

The ninjas fighting on the side of the mountain and the city destruction still look pretty cool, but I'm still not exactly optimistic for the rest of the film. Pushing it back a whole year for post-conversion 3-D is hardly the stuff that instills confidence.

I hear what was shown at BNAT was received fairly well though, so maybe there is hope for a fun popcorn flick to come from this yet.

I don't care what year they eventually release this in or why; that image alone is genius.
Weird to see how much the effects quality is all over the map; compare the ninja mountainside stuff (which I swear I read somewhere is 100% CGI, which blows my mind) to the shot of Bruce Willis in the doughnut-ing car. I know different effects houses handle different shots, and it's two completely different kinds of effects, but that's some huge disparity right there.

Is that Cobra's satellite, the giant threat in the movie, probably the Big Thing The Joes Need To Stop blowing up in the trailer? Hopefully they need to split into teams and travel the world to find the parts before Cobra does. Now that I would watch.

This could work, in a A-Team movie sort of way.
The Good:
1) There seems to be more emphasis on the vehicles. For my money, G.I. Joe was always about the awesome vehicles. The figures/characters were kinda secondary, IMHO.
I like that they seem to be trying to walk that line between plausibility and fantasy that the earlier 80s toys had (like the Skystriker and the Rattler), rather than the rediculousness of the first movie's exo-suits or the later toys that started to get really silly (remember the eco-warriors?).
2) Cobra doing the big, take-over-the-world-with-satellites thang that Cobra does so well. This is very good. Let Cobra be Cobra, and let G.I. Joe be G.I. Joe.
3) Bruce Willis FTW.
4) Ray Stevenson is in it. Win.
5) Ray Park as Snake-Eyes is always a win.
The Bad:
1) Jonathan Pryce has a tendency to get a wee bit TOO campy when playing a villain. In Tomorrow Never Dies he started off well, but he descended into cartoon territory by the end of the movie. As such, I dunno if I believe him as the US President. He's better as a small, flustered character like good 'ol Sam Lowry. On the other hand, it might work for a movie like this.
The Middling:
1) I don't really care one way or the other about Channing Tatum. He doesn't work as a G.I. Joe leader/commander, but he's fine as a random G.I. Joe character. Plus, I'd simply be a little annoyed if they killed off Duke, regardless of the actor playing him.
2) I'm not a huge Dwayne Johnson fan, but he looks like he could be fine. In my mind's eye though, I think of Roadblock as more of a Bubba Smith type of character, you know?
3) Adrienne Palicki? Meh. She's fine, but not a terribly strong or memorable actor.
Basically, I PREFER to see two STRONG actors as Duke and Scarlett, along with a nice love triangle between Duke, Scarlett and Snake-Eyes, a la G.I. Joe Resolute, but whattayagonnado?
Here's hoping they hire Warren Ellis to write G.I. Joe 3!

As far as Channing Tatum my impression of him changed after 21 Jump Street. Loved him in that and Haywire so I'm cool with him being added to the action. It made no sense to off Duke anyway. If they couldn't do it in the 80s movie you can't do it now LOL.

Just goes to show that the hollywood marketers don't actually listen to the words of the songs they choose. They just here it's got that militiristic sound to the beat that the kids listen to nowadays LOL.

It already seems odd to have Bruce Willis and this suburban stuff shoehorned into a big popcorn CG action fest. Trying to also shoehorn more Tatum into the film seems like the tipping point to turn the film into a mess.
Which, to the 10-year-old in me, is too bad, as this has the look of what could be (or could have been) a fun, endearing big-dumb-action spectacle. Looks way more interesting than the first one. But I'm getting the feeling they never really knew what they wanted the film to be, and now are even confused about who it's supposed to star.

Yes, but but this cost 2.5 times more to make than Hunger Games (John Carter cost 3 times as much as HG).
Granted, it is being released at the end of the month (like Hunger Games was) and will avoid the ghost-town weekend that is the middle of March Break (unlike John Carter).
Being the first movie of that series (and based on a popular series of books) there was high anticipation for Hunger Games. It would have done well regardless of what month it was released.
This is a sequel to a movie that had less-than-stellar reviews and only an OK Box Office ($300 million worldwide). There was little anticipation for this movie last year before it got pulled from the Summer schedule. Doubtful the 9 month delay has done much of anything to change that.
I doubt it will do as poorly as John Carter. However, I also doubt it will come anywhere close to doing as well as Hunger Games. It may not even do as well as the original, even with the inflated BO that 3D brings.

I get that a lot of women think he's good looking. But he's good looking in a very ordinary way. There are tons of actors that look as good as this guy, and guys with his body are a dime a dozen in pop culture.
Beyond that, he's a complete stiff - like a male Pamela Anderson, minus her personality, charm, and social activism.
That shouldn't be enough to make anyone stand out.
But then, this is the age of tripe like Twilight and 50 Shades of Gray standing out. It's like the worst of modern repressed-mainstream-women psychology has taken over the entire culture.
And I say this as someone whose beliefs could accurately be called feminist.

Really guys? How can any real "fan" of G.I. JOE "not" have a good, fun, stupid time with the first movie?
Sure, Channing was a plank of wood, but we get the terrorist guy actually being able to play a good guy for once, Adabisi from OZ, Super hot Scarlett AND the Baroness, a good pace with lots of action... I just don't get it.
And how is it that Stormshadow is coming back when he was deader than dead in the last movie? And Scarlett and EVERYONE from the last movie is dead too? This is along the level of whacking Hicks, Bishop and Newt at the beginning of ALIEN 3 (okay, maybe not THAT big.. but still pretty big). You don't kill off characters that are played by B-list celebs that won't cost you a shitload of money to begin with before, during or right after the opening credits.
I think I'll be downloading this one and keep my finger on the fast-forward button.

No matter how much more entertaining and satisfying this movie may be than the first one was (and it looks to be that way), it will be overshadowed and RUINED by the idea that characters such as Duke, Scarlett, and Hawk are "dead". There is no way these characters will die unless hasbro and the people behind this movie are on a financial suicide mission. IN the first trailer when its quoted "they're all dead" ... who's to say what or who that is referring to. All of the people on the scene? All of them in that one particular base. All the people at that one particular battle? Clearly ... it's not ALL the GIJOES, or there will be no further movies, comics, stories. This movie is meant to be episodic and so Hawk, Scarlett, they are just away on leave or on a different mission when these events go down. Or perhaps many of the them are jailed somewhere and not "dead". And even if they did go for something as utterly stupid as killing off all the joes as a way to simply justify not getting back the actors to play them, that does not explain where the hell DESTRO and THE BARONESS are during this one.

BTW. Any "GIJOE" movie without Destro and the Baroness (especially if this is the second movie and STILL no "real" Destro) ... is like having a Harry Potter movie without Harry Potter appearing in it. EPIC FAIL in storytelling.

Iv'e been taking a bit of a hiatus on a count of a few Whack-job losers who further diminished the Talkbacks to a proverbial Shitfest. (Well at least one received the Banhammer as of late. LMMFAO) Most of you Guys are Cool though. Other than that, Life is good Comrade.
Yeah, the first thing that came to mind was the spat between you and Zarles. And i gotta admit, at first i thought he was full of shit too until he delved further into the Screening citing the scene in which Cobra Commander abandons Destro while saying "you're not in the Band". And that sound like something the Director of that justin Bieber Movie would allow to be used.
Zarles called it but took your skepticism a bit too personally IMO. But let's all leave as water under the bridge and all agree wether or not the sequel with "Added" footage will suck.
Judging from the trailer, They got a few things right especially the satilite weapon that harkens back to the MASS Device Miniseries. Oh, And Cobra Commander actually looks like Cobra Commander.
I'm hoping that atleast Retaliation will fare better than Rise of Cobra. Cause Fool me twice...
(0:/

Yeah I actually got confirmation from a trusted friend that the Kicked out of the band thing was true. So I suspect our buddy Zarles was right, but it was the way he said it that I had a problem with.
Oh well, I don't mind eating a little crow when called for. Water under the bridge, indeed.
Yo Joe!

...seriously, a film based on a kid toyline from the 80s. Looks like there is at least an inkling of an attempt to make it somewhat decent. The first one, all crap aside, was better than all three of Bay's attempts. And was that Jinx, the female yellow ninja?
This vehicle is the same caliber as Star Trek, all boom booms with little story, and yet this gets more rage than that flacid attempt. Star Trek isn't about fucking explosions, its about exploration along a final frontier...Yo Joe on the otherhand is about explosions and prepubescent wars in your sandbox. So why the fuck not?
I hate Tatum as Duke, and if he dies it won't be the first time. Who's to say the other Joes aren't just MIA or something...or for that matter, who even cares? Its not like killing them off is going to effect toy sales.
Looks like what I expected...except for the North Korea jab. That shit was funny as fuck.

Fucking megastar, bitches. Get ready for all the Tatum you can handle (and them some more) over the next 30 years. The man's a Hollywood titan. Cruise did it ten years younger thou. That's why he is still the Greatest Movie Star of All-time (tm). I can't wait for their inevitable team-up. Maybe reboot the Lethal Weapon franchise with these two?
/green font

I had a nightmare not long ago where it was maybe 15 years in the future...at least.
Most of the actor heroes of our past (your Fords, Arnie's, Hanks, Cruise...whoever...most of the big name guys) have either passed on or are retired.
The best of them, who you could rely on for solid work, were long gone.
New generations have come through, standards have fallen.
Channing Tatum accepts an Oscar for Best Actor in a leading role...only because there was no one better than him to compete with.
The Gen Y's, today's tweens have grown up and taken hold of leading the world and today's current excuses for thespians and their massive lackings in talent dominate the world's entertainment mediums.
Like a talkbacker lamented in the Transformers 4 post, the Dustin Hoffmans of today have no chance against the supposedly aesthetically pleasing though vacuous model / actors / singers that we deal with and endure.
The Hoffmans and Gene Hackmans of the world until the early 2000's had 40 years worth of leading and headlining the film industry.
Ugly but talented. The best these kind of guys...like Buscemi, Giamatti, etc can usually hope for is a supporting role or go onto TV. With few exceptions.
The same happened with music too. Older men like Billy Joel, Phil Collins and Elton John were kings, pop idols to everyone...even teenage girls in the 80's. Can't find that anymore.
Too much image, too little substance.

Being well over the age of 30, i've zero understanding of the relevance of this Tatum entity, so his involvement or lack there of, in this movie means sweet fa to me.
But i like Bruce Willis and on that indepth and compelling note I think i'll watch this.

She goes to those girly sites where they shorten things for extra cuteness. Totes jels and on the regs, that sort of thing. So in addition to Chan Tates I have Tarder Sauce the cat and Hey Girl... to deal with. However, she just recently ended the 5 year blow job embargo, so things could always be worse.

Ok so obviously Duke is the one falling into that water well, gets knocked the fucked out and goes into a coma then in the end Doc calls "The Rock"and says "Duke came out of his coma" Then the Joes look at each other and say "COBRAAAAAA oops ahem YO JOE!!!!"

Things today aren't that different from the 90s, 80s, 70s, etc.
The Attractive Leading Man/Woman goes back to Hollywood's beginnings... it's almost part of the definition.
And there are plenty of A-listers today that aren't where they are for their looks, and a number did get in for their looks, ended up being decent.
Tatum is no Gary Oldman, but's he not that bad, and Kitsch was pretty decent in FNL.